The Poisoned Chalice of In Vitro Fertilization

     

Sometimes things look perfect and beautiful on the outside, but a closer look reveals a starker reality. This is true of in vitro fertilization. While it may look promising at first glance, once we really come to understand this technology and its repercussions, we can't help but be opposed. Today's commentary examines these realities and offers an alternative for couples who desperately want a child.

"Reproductive technology" is fraught with moral problems, including practices that should never arise. They occur because some clinicians have determined that they can treat infertility by manipulation. Rather than diagnosing the cause of infertility and getting to the root of the problem in an ethical way, in vitro fertilization practitioners chose years ago to respond to the emotionally draining problems facing barren couples by using a laboratory to "make" children.

The expectation then, as now, is to create embryonic babies, choose the best ones for implantation, hope the process works the first time and charge exorbitant fees. When there are "leftover" embryonic people, they are often either frozen or given to science to be killed so that human embryonic research can be carried out.

On the other hand, if these children are deemed in some way "defective" after pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is used, they are killed in the laboratory. If they are all the wrong sex, then the couple may opt to try again—allowing these children to be killed and putting more money into the pockets of the doctors by attempting the procedure again.

It's a lucrative racket for sure.

But one would think that anyone with a logical mind would discern that there's something wrong with the whole scenario. So why do so few discuss or admit that this documented treachery exists?

In Great Britain, when two children were born after IVF treatment, and were apparently created using the wrong sperm, their parents sued. The children have darker skin than their white parents and, according to their mother, have been subjected to ridicule and name-calling. 

However, a judge ruled that the case had no merit and that "the children had no legitimate expectation other than being born healthy and well." He also stated, "The presence of persons sufficiently misguided and cruel as to issue racist comments directed to these children is no basis for a conclusion that they are somehow damaged." Thus, the parents will not receive remuneration for personal injury even though the wrong sperm was used.
In New York, a woman was recently granted permission to harvest sperm from her dead husband. She claimed she did not want the death of her husband to stand in the way of their desire to start a family.

As if such macabre events were not enough to convince establishment repro-tech experts that there has to be a better way to treat infertility, we now know that children conceived through in-vitro fertilization have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities and suffer a greater number of overall health problems than naturally conceived children.

Such evidence of the pitfalls inherent in such practices has been increasing with the passage of each year. But this has not slowed the multi-million dollar industry.

As one mother admitted in a heart-wrenching exposé on the emotional toll IVF and other such practices can take on the family unit,

Medical technology has made me a mother, and my amazing son is living proof of how mind-blowing science truly is. At the same time, IVF technology and the hope it proffers have driven a stake through the very heart of my life. I have a son but I also have a divorce to my name, a string of lost or radically altered friendships, and the emotional scars of years of medical intervention. Society would call me churlish for saying it, because I got my 'prize,' but the relentless pursuit of fertility has been a poisoned chalice.

Clearly the reproductive technology business is fraught with pain, agony, death and enormous financial cost to families. So why does it continue unabated? It's all about the money, the denial that anything could possibly go wrong and the quest to replace God with the gods who wear white laboratory coats and feel no remorse.
The real barrenness in the quest for domination over man and manipulation of his genes resides in the hearts of those who will not stop, no matter what the human cost.

THE SOLUTION: Such diabolical events need not ever occur. There is an ethical treatment of infertility. It is called NaProTECHNOLOGY. Based on the truth that nature and procreation can work together even in face of infertility, this is the wave of the future—the new face of hope.

Contact: Judie Brown
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Young people's knowledge gap is golden opportunity for pro-life education

     

Last month The Mail on Sunday reported on a survey of childless Britons aged 18 to 25 on the subject of children. According to the report, of those surveyed:

 - one in five think an umbilical cord is a musical note, and that pregnancy lasts for 12 months 

 - around one in ten thinks that a placenta is a vegetable; a caesarean section is a religious cult; drinking tea or coffee will influence the colour of an unborn child's hair; and eating red meat raises the likelihood of giving birth to a boy.

 - more than half would expect a baby to be walking and talking within the first year 

Such lack of  knowledge is a gap which the pro-life movement can fill. SPUC speakers often report positive experiences after being invited to speak in a school, such as genuine interest in the issues from pupils and a warm welcome by teachers. Pupils are particularly intrigued by SPUC's set of anatomically-correct foetal models.

It is also vital for scientifically accurate information about unborn children to be imparted to pupils so that they can spot pro-abortion misinformation. In this country, the pro-abortion lobby - with the active assistance of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales, an agency of the Catholic bishops' conference -  is working to entrench itself in schools through sex and relationships education (SRE). We must hope that the recently-elected coalition government will not force schools to teach SRE and will not resurrect the previous government's plan to impose an anti-life/anti-family curriculum upon our children and grandchildren.

Contact: John Smeaton
Source: SPUC
Publish Date: November 7, 2010

Report: Health Care for Elderly Better in USA than UK

     

A new study is out that seems to show that medical care for older Americans–of increasing interest to me!–is better than for oldsters in the UK.  From the story in Science Daily:

Researchers found that while Americans aged 55 to 64 have higher rates of chronic diseases than their peers in England, they died at about the same rate. And Americans age 65 and older — while still sicker than their English peers — had a lower death rate than similar people in England, according to findings published in the journal Demography.

Why might that be?

Researchers say there are two possible explanations why death rates are higher for English after age 65 as compared to Americans. One is that the illnesses studied result in higher mortality in England than in the United States. The second is that the English are diagnosed at a later stage in the disease process than Americans. "Both of these explanations imply that there is higher-quality medical care in the United States than in England, at least in the sense that these chronic illnesses are less likely to cause death among people living in the United States," Smith said.

Could it be that a primarily privatized system such as that in the USA–even under Medicare in which only about 50% of expenses are paid by the government, and private options are rife–works better than a primarily publicly financed NHS model?  Could it also be that the NICE style rationing in the UK cuts against the elderly–it sometimes definitely does–and keeps them from receiving the best efficacious treatments that extend lives?  Much of that is informal, but NICE rations osteoporosis drugs even for seniors under the age of 75.

In any event, these are complex matters for which there are no simple explanations.  But it is interesting.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 8, 2010

Planned Parenthood Makes Post-Election Appeal to Donors for Help in Saving Its Taxpayer Funding From 'Dangerous Politicians'

     

In a letter sent to supporters by e-mail on the day after Republicans were swept in as the new majority in the House of Representatives and gained seats in the Senate, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards used the election results to press for an "emergency donation" to help fight against "dangerous politicians who oppose women's health and the right to choose."

"Even before yesterday's election, women's health was under attack," Richards wrote in the e-mail, which was sent on Nov. 3. "Anti-choice Republicans like Congressman Mike Pence from Indiana have introduced legislation to defund Planned Parenthood."

"That's the frightening reality we face, and it's only going to get worse," Richards wrote.

According to the last annual report made public by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the organization received $349.6 million in government grants and contracts.

Pence (R-Ind.) was one of 31 Republicans who ordered a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) seeking the total amount of federal funding used by Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, including the Guttmacher Institute, the Population Council, Advocates for Youth, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).

The GAO report, released in May, states that the combined total in federal dollars spent by those organizations from FY 2002-2009 was $967.1 million – $657.1 million of that is listed as expenditures of federal funds for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation, according to the GAO, reported spending $3.9 million in federal funds over those fiscal years (2002-2009); the Guttmacher Institute, $12.7 million; the Population Council, $284.3 million; SIECUS, $300,000; and Advocates for Youth, $8.7 million.

In January 2009, Pence introduced legislation that would amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit "providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion."

The proposed law makes exceptions for abortions performed in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The bill, H.R. 614, was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a committee that could soon be chaired by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January. Barton, now the ranking member of that committee, also signed on to the GAO report request.
Richards' e-mail donation pitch included a personal pledge: "I promise you this: Planned Parenthood will never stop caring for women, and we will never stop fighting for their rights. No matter what happened yesterday, I know that today thousands of women, men, and teens will get the care they need at Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers."

The e-mail included two links to make a credit card donation to Planned Parenthood.

Contact: Penny Starr
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 8, 2010 

Pro-life leaders reflect on gains in Congress, fallout from health care law

     

Pro-life Republican gains in Congress are "substantial" and are likely due to the Catholic vote, according to two pro-life leaders. However, a pro-life Democrat lamented her caucus' losses, noting the need for reconciliation with the Catholic Church after a tough political fight over health care legislation.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), told CNA that the pro-life issue motivated a lot of voters. From the NRLC's perspective, there were "very, very substantial" improvements in about 65 House seats.

"Either a hardcore pro-abortion candidate was defeated by a pro-life challenger, or someone with a mixed record, like on the health care bill, was replaced."

The bulk of the candidates, about 40, were "hardcore pro-abortion people" who voted for pro-life legislation "seldom if ever."

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said her organization's "Votes Have Consequences" program was a "huge success" in targeting supporters of the health care legislation.

"When you can successfully defeat 15 out of 20 members of Congress, you know something about the future of the movement," she continued, calling its future "extremely bright."

Expressing her "excitement" about the state of contemporary politics, she discussed a "strong pro-life trend" in America among women as well.

"We are seeing a surge of women candidates who are strongly pro-life."

Such enthusiasm was not shared by all pro-life leaders. Democrats for Life of America head Kristen Day said the election was "disappointing" for pro-life Democrats.

"We lost so many good members of our pro-life caucus," she said, reporting the caucus had been halved from about 40 to about 20.

"We've been there before though," she added. "We're very encouraged, which sounds odd, seeing the massive defeat that we had as Democrats as a whole."

She reported that the new Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchem, is a pro-life Democrat.

Day also noted an "outpouring of support" for and new interest in her organization from people "concerned about the partisanship of the pro-life community, and the targeting of all these good pro-life Democrats."

She thought concern over the health care bill and whether it funded abortion played a role "because the conservative groups really used it, to a bad degree."

She cited a hometown newspaper ad against Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Penn.) which said the congresswoman called the Catholic Church "liars" in defending her position that the health care legislation does not fund abortion.

The NRLC's Johnson also he suspected opposition to the health care legislation was a motivating factor for voters, especially the "abortion-related problems" with the bill.

Criticizing "smokescreens" from what he called "phony front-groups like Catholics United and Democrats for Life of America," Douglas said that President Obama's health care law contains "many provisions which will expand abortion if they are allowed to go into effect."

"Fortunately, most of them have not yet gone into effect," Johnson added, advocating the repeal and replacement of the law.

In his view, the broader problem is the "piecemeal, patchwork fashion" of addressing abortion funding restrictions.

"The Hyde Amendment itself expires every year. A lot of people don't realize it has to be reenacted."

The proposed No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would be a "comprehensive fix," according to Johnson. At the National Right to Life Convention this summer, presumptive House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) endorsed the bill. It was also mentioned in the Republican leadership's Pledge to America.

The act would "permanently prohibit federal funding and subsidies for abortion in all programs, and it wouldn't expire every year." Johnson deemed this a "top priority" to avoid a "charade" accompanying new federal programs which under present law constantly require new abortion funding regulations.

This proposal will be "a tough fight" because it will face opposition from Democratic leadership in the Senate and from President Obama, Johnson predicted. He charged that the president has been a proponent of abortion funding "despite his verbal position."

SBA List's Dannenfelser likewise backed uniform restrictions on abortion. She also proposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States.

"Planned Parenthood gets $300 million a year from taxpayers. This props up abortion centers across the nation and makes us all culpable in something most Americans disagree with.

Asked about likely pro-life legislation from the new Congress, Kristen Day said it would depend on Republican action in the House.

"I'm not sure that we have a pro-life majority in the Senate," she explained.

Concerning the Catholic vote, Dannenfesler thought it was "a significant factor in restoring a pro-life Congress."

"The more frequent churchgoers, those are the people we need to reach," she told CNA. "The life issue is at the heart of the Church."

For her part, Day said post-election reconciliation is needed.

"The Democratic Party really agreed with the Catholic Church a lot, and a lot of Democrats felt abandoned by the Catholic bishops for not standing up for their positions."

She said she had to remind critics of the health care legislation that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) mainly endorsed the legislation and opposed it because of the abortion issue.

"The truth will come out on this health care bill, particularly with the election case in Ohio. People are going to come to realize what a mistake the pro-life community made in targeting these good pro-life members."

Day charged that conservative pro-lifers have been trying to cut down pro-life Democrats "for some time" because "they feel like the abortion issue is a winning issue for the Republicans and they don't want the Democrats to take that away."

"I'm a Catholic, so I really want these pro-life Democrats and the Catholic Church to reconcile their differences over this health care bill so we can continue to work together on pressing policies that help pregnant women, reduce abortion and make sure that we do have universal health care."

Contact: Kevin J. Jones
Source: CNA
Publish Date: November 5, 2010

SBA List Claims Major Pro-Life Women Election Gains, Emily's List Defeats in 2010 Mid-Term Election

     

Dannenfelser: "[This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women] is a corrective moment for the women's movement which must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced several major victories in its efforts to elect pro-life women candidates and to defeat pro-abortion women candidates to Congress and statewide office. (Click here for a running tally of pro-life woman candidate victories and pro-abortion woman candidate defeats.)

"This shift in numbers from pro-abortion to pro-life women is historic and no accident," SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said. "It is a corrective moment for the women's movement which must either drop abortion out of its center or risk dropping off the face of the earth."

During the 2010 election cycle, the SBA List spent $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to Congressional and statewide office. With several races yet to be called, the SBA List determined the following about its impact in the 2010 elections:

• Overall, the SBA List endorsed 48 candidates in general election races involving women. Among those, 34 SBA List-endorsed candidates won and, among those, 23 are pro-life women victories and 11 are pro-abortion women defeats. 

• In SBA List-versus-EMILY's List head-to-head races, SBA List candidates won 91 percent of the time. Overall, EMILY's List had a 38 percent success rate among its endorsed candidates. 

• The percentage of women in the House of Representatives who are pro-life increased by 60 percent while the percentage of women who are pro-choice decreased by 16 percent. 

• In the U.S. Senate, SBA List-endorsed Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) fills the void of pro-life women Senators, while John Boozman's defeat of Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln replaces one pro-choice woman Senator. Pro-life Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) successfully defended his seat against a pro-abortion woman challenger and pro-life candidate Roy Blunt (R-MO) successfully defeated EMILY's List favorite Robin Carnahan in the Missouri U.S. Senate race. 

• With sweeping victories among its four endorsed pro-life women gubernatorial candidates - Jan Brewer (R-AZ), Susana Martinez (R-NM), Nikki Haley (R-SC) and Mary Fallin (R-OK) - the SBA List increased the number of pro-life women governors from one to four, making four out of six women Governors pro-life. 

• The SBA List added four endorsed pro-life women to statewide offices across the country: Kay Ivey (AL-Lt. Gov), Kim Reynolds (IA-Lt. Gov.), Pam Bondi (FL-Att. Gen.) and Beth Chapman (AL-Sec. of State).

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm elections, including: $3.4 million on its "Votes Have Consequences" project targeting self-described "pro-life" Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care bill; $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Statewide Office; and $1.4 million spent defeating pro-abortion incumbents and protecting pro-life leaders. SBA List members across the country bundled over $600,000 in direct contributions to candidates. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races. 

Contact: Kerry Brown
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

'Stop Abortion Funding' Campaign Calls for End of Federal Funding of Abortion

Dannenfelser: "Now is the time to translate Tuesday's pro-life electoral gains into pro-life legislative victories... Congress must start by ending federal funding of abortion both here and abroad."

     

Today, the Susan B. Anthony List announced the launch of its "Stop Abortion Funding" campaign aimed at ending all federal funding of abortion in the upcoming 112th Congress. The campaign includes a website for pro-life activists to lobby Congress (www.StopAbortionFunding.com).

"Now is the time to translate Tuesday's pro-life electoral gains into pro-life legislative victories," said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "On Tuesday, large numbers of Representatives learned the consequences of their vote for taxpayer funding of abortion in the health care bill when they were thrown out of office by the constituents they betrayed. Those Members have been replaced by authentic pro-life voices supported by a strongly pro-life GOP leadership. The GOP leadership understands the urgency of addressing the tragedy of nearly 4,000 abortions a day and has pledged to defund abortion in its 'Pledge to America.' Now is the time to make good on that Pledge to restore moral and fiscal responsibility in Washington. Congress must start by ending federal funding of abortion both here and abroad."

The SBA List's petition and outreach efforts will include mobilization of its ever-growing 280,000-member grassroots network to encourage Members to pass pro-life legislation and stop pro-abortion legislation in the 112th Congress. 

To accomplish this, the SBA List will urge Members of Congress to pass two priority pieces of pro-life legislation. The first bill is the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL), which will create a government-wide statutory prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, which would repeal abortion funding in Obamacare. The second bill is the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), which would ensure that tax dollars are not sent to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood under Title X family planning funds.

"With the majority of Americans labeling themselves pro-life and an even stronger majority agreeing that tax dollars should not fund abortion, the consensus for passage of pro-life legislation could not be stronger," Dannenfelser said. "The Stop Abortion Funding campaign will echo the message sent from the ballot box that Americans are ready to pass life-saving laws."

The Susan B. Anthony List spent $11 million during the 2010 midterm elections, including: $3.4 million on its "Votes Have Consequences" project targeting self-described "pro-life" Democrats who voted for abortion funding in the health care bill; $2.3 million on its efforts to elect pro-life women to congressional and statewide office; and $1.4 million on defeating pro-abortion incumbents and protecting pro-life leaders. SBA List members across the country bundled more than $600,000 in direct contributions to candidates. Overall, the SBA List was involved in 90 races including 61 wins, 21 losses, and 8 yet to be called. Successes included: defeating 15 of 20 "Votes Have Consequences" targets; increasing the number of pro-life women in the House by 60 percent; filling the void of pro-life women in the U.S. Senate and increasing the number of pro-life women governors from one to four. In SBA List-versus-EMILY's List head-to-head races, SBA List candidates won 91 percent of the time.

Contact: Kerry Brown
Source: Susan B. Anthony List
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

Abortionist Brigham's replacements "bottom of the barrel"

     

Operation Rescue has conducted an investigation of the American Women's Services (AWS) abortion chain operated by the notorious Steven Chase Brigham and discovered that abortionists who are working to keep AWS open during Brigham's medical license suspension have shocking backgrounds that include criminal convictions and other problems. This information has led Operation Rescue to believe that the entire ASW chain is fraught with problems and should be shut down to protect the public.

"Brighham's abortion business is a haven for the bottom of the barrel criminals and quacks masquerading as medical doctors, and that's just the unvarnished truth," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "We have reviewed hundreds of pages of disciplinary documents. Every medical misfit on the east coast that has run out of options seems to have found a welcome home in Brigham's abortion organization."

Abortionists who continue to work for Brigham include:

- An admitted sex offender and drug abuser

- Two convicted drug violators

- A convicted income tax cheat who once paid out $3.5 million in a malpractice suit

- An abortionist convicted of billing fraud

- Several abortionists that cannot get hospital privileges

Brigham was suspended in New Jersey after a botched abortion led to the discovery of his illegal late-term abortion scheme that spanned 2 states. All of Brigham's clinics in Maryland have closed, at least temporarily, but he continues to operate dangerous clinics in 3 other states.

"We have a message for the authorities in Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia: For the love of God, please close these abortion clinics!" said Newman. "As relieved as we were by the suspensions and clinic closures, the authorities really need to do more and close AWS down permanently. What we discovered about Brigham's current abortion staff was worse than we had imagined."

Click here to read OR's full report with documentation links.

Source: ProLifeBlogs
Publish Date: November 4, 2010

Post Election Statement by David O'Steen PH.D. NRLC Executive Director

     


Post-election polling has shown that pro-life issues played a major role in what happened at the polls yesterday and provided a margin sufficient to guarantee victory in many close races.

According to a national post-election poll conducted by the Polling Company, 22% said abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates that opposed abortion as opposed to only 8% who said that abortion affected their vote and that they voted for candidates who favored abortion.

The abortion issue was prevalent in the debate over the Obama Health Care Law and National Right to Life sought, but ultimately failed, to obtain language in the law to prevent abortion subsidies in all parts of the law. Numerous Democrats who voted for the law, including many who had previously voted pro-life, were defeated last night. Polling shows that the abortion component of the health care law played a major role in those defeats.

Twenty-seven percent of voters said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law as opposed to only 4% who said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the law.

National Right to Life has also repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Health Care Law, if allowed to go into effect, will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment.

The public agrees and clearly showed last night that they oppose rationing.

Forty-four percent of voters said rationing in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law while only 10% said rationing in the health care bill affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the Obama Health Care Law.

Overall 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly).

The poll also revealed that a majority continues to favor allowing abortion only in very rare circumstances. Fifty-three percent would allow abortion at most in cases to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest as opposed to 41% who would allow abortion regardless of the reason. However, 25% of those who gave a pro-abortion response would allow abortion only in the first three months while the current policy under Roe vs. Wade allows abortion essentially throughout pregnancy for any reason.

Contact: David O'Steen PH.D.
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Race for the Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation: Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?

  
     

Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth. 

That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.

We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?

For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.

Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.

For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).

This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.

Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college. 

The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer? 

The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.

The difference is the dose

So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?

In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.

Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.

The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009. Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.

This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of  Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer. 

October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.

Contact: Jenn Giroux
Source: Zenit.org via HLI
Publish Date: November 4, 2010 

"Awesome" Election 2010: Reaction from US Pro-Life Leaders

     

"Last night (Tuesday night) was a great night for the pro-life movement," said Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life reacting to Tuesday night's election results. "New pro-life governors, representatives, senators, and state legislators across the nation have won victories."

Brad Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute said: "America sent a loud and clear message at the polls yesterday. Voters said that President Obama's pro-abortion agenda-the most pro-abortion in history-is taking our nation in the wrong direction."

Americans United for Life (AUL) Action which ran over 5,000 radio ads as part of their effort to get out the pro-life vote cheered the results. "During the debate over the health care bill, we urged Members of Congress to reject taxpayer-funded abortion," said Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, AUL Action. "Yesterday, eleven politicians learned that Life Counts, and voters elected a new Congress committed to defending Life."

"We are grateful to the Lord that so many Americans voted in accordance with their well-formed consciences, choosing candidates who are more likely to protect life and family," said Human Life International President Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula.  "After the disappointing results of the previous election, it is very encouraging to see that American citizens are returning to the foundational values of the nation."

Family Research Council Action was very pleased that many of the candidates they endorsed were elected with a 100% re-election rate for those who scored 100% on FRC Action's scorecard. "Tonight's election results points to the significant impact of the natural alliance between the Tea Party, social conservatives, and other Americans disillusioned by Washington's politics as usual," said FRC Action President Tony Perkins.

Pro-Life women had much to celebrate with four female pro-life Governors elected and the entrance of the first pro-life woman into the current Senate. 

"Kelly Ayotte fills a major void in Congress as the U.S. Senate currently lacks a single woman's pro-life voice," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List which supported Ayotte's campaign. "She represents the flowering of the original pro-life roots of the women's movement which rejected the notion that the rights of unborn children and their mothers could be detached.

Concerned Women for America called last night "a good night for concerned women." Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, stated: "Conservative women spoke loud and clear in the 2010 elections. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee led efforts to mobilize behind principled candidates like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio in the Senate and Vickie Hartzler and Kristi Noem and many others in the House.

The celebratory mood however has not dampened the fighting spirit of the leaders.  FRC Action's Perkins said that "Voters will now look to the newly elected GOP-led House of Representatives to restore the Constitution to its proper role and fulfill its pledge to ' honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.'"

Fr. Pavone urged supporters: "Now let's communicate with and encourage our newly-elected officials, and work with them on the specific initiatives that will need our help.  And let the work begin to make even greater progress in 2012. Sign up at PoliticalResponsibility.com."

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), is urging the new Congress to repeal President Obama's flawed healthcare package. "Most Americans have said they want ObamaCare repealed," said ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow.  "And, now with a sweeping change in Congress, it's time to do just that. The fact is with the outcome of this election - along with growing opposition to ObamaCare - this is the perfect time to act legislatively and repeal the health care law."

Msgr. Barreiro noted that despite the victories "we need to remain vigilant: the newly-elected pro-life members of Congress must act in coherence with the promises they made during their campaigns. Also these results show, particularly with regard to the Senate results, that we have to continue our efforts to preach in season and out of season the Gospel of Life because it is evident that many Americans continue to be closed to the light of the truth."

Mattes pointed out in a conversation with LifeSiteNews that in addition to major victories in Congress and among Governors, many pro-life members of state legislatures were elected. "All of this should give Planned Parenthood heartburn," said Mattes referring to the fact that a growing number of PP affiliates are suspected of financial fraud regarding overbilling Medicaid for abortion and family planning services.

In Wisconsin new pro-life majorities were elected in the state Senate and state Assembly as well as a pro-life governor and lieutenant governor. "We congratulate Governor-elect Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor-elect Rebecca Kleefisch on their outstanding victories, victories for Wisconsin's preborn children and the vulnerable elderly and disabled," said Mary Matuska, president of the Pro-Life Wisconsin (PLW) Victory Fund political action committee (PAC).

Similarly in Ohio pro-life candidates swept each and every statewide office. Furthermore, pro-life Ohioans elected new members of Ohio's congressional delegation committed to defending Life.  ORTL PAC distributed 500,000 ballot cards statewide and made tens of thousands of automated calls in key races among other activities.

Ohio Right to Life PAC's Mike Gonidakis pointed out that five ORTL PAC Congressional candidates defeated incumbents who voted for Obamacare.  ORTL was also proud to announce that their own pro-life Congressman John Boehner, will be the next Speaker of the US House of Representatives.

Contact: John-Henry Westen
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Massive Pro-Life Blowout in US Governor Races

   

Pro-life candidates made a massive sweep of U.S. governor's races on Tuesday's midterm elections, capitalizing on the GOP wave.

Pro-life-endorsed candidates have so far picked up 12 governorships, and retained control of 9 governorships. At least three races involving pro-life candidates are undecided.

The 13 pro-life pick-ups (winner in bold):

Alabama – Robert Bentley (R) 58 percent vs. Ron Sparks (D) 42 percent.

Florida - Rick Scott (R) 49 percent vs. Alex Sink (D) 48 percent.

Iowa: Terry Branstadt (R) 53 percent vs. Chet Culver (D) 43 percent.

Kansas: Sam Brownback (R) 63 percent vs. Tom Holland (D) 32 percent.

Maine: Paul LePage (R) 38 percent vs. Eliot Cutler (I) 37 percent vs. Libby Mitchell (D) 19 percent.

Michigan: Rick Snyder (R)  58 percent vs. Virg Bernero (D) 40 percent.

New Mexico: Susana Martinez (R) 54 percent vs. Diane Denish (D) 46 percent.

Ohio: John Kasich (R) 49 percent vs. Ed Strickland (D) 47 percent.

Oklahoma: Mary Fallin (R) 60 percent vs. Jari Askins (D) 40 percent.

Pennsylvania: Tom Corbett (R) 55 percent vs. Dan Onorato (D) 45 percent.

Tennessee: Bill Haslam (R) 65 percent vs. Mike McWherter (D) 33 percent.

Wisconsin: Scott Walker (R) 52 percent vs. Tom Barrett (D) 47 percent.

Wyoming: Matt Mead (R) 72 percent vs. Leslie Petersen (D) 25 percent.


The nine (9) retained pro-life seats (winner in bold)

Alaska: Sean Parnell (R) 59 percent vs. Ethan Berkowitz (D) 38 percent.

Arizona: Jan Brewer (R) re-elected. Brewer 55 percent vs. Terry Goddard (D) 42 percent.

Georgia: Nathan Deal (R) replaces Sonny Purdue (R). Deal 53 percent vs. Roy Barnes (D) 43 percent.

Idaho: Butch Otter (R) re-elected. Otter 59 percent v. Keith Allred (D) 33 percent.

Nebraska: Dave Heineman (R) re-elected. Heineman 74 percent vs. Mike Meister (D) 26 percent.

South Carolina: Nikki Haley (R) replaces the disgraced Mark Sanford (R). Haley 51 percent vs. Vincent Sheheen (D) 47 percent.

South Dakota: Dennis Daugaard (R) replaces Mike Rounds (R). Daugaard 62 percent vs. Scott Heidepriem (D) 39 percent.

Texas: Rick Perry (R) re-elected. Perry 55 percent vs. Bill White (D) 42 percent.

Utah: Gary Herbert (R) re-elected. Herbert 64 percent v. Peter Corroon (D) 32 percent.


Undecided races for pro-life candidates: Illinois, Minnesota

Only U.S. State where a pro-abortion Republican has won: Nevada.

Pro-abortion Brian Sandoval (R) 53 percent v. Rory Reid (D) 42 percent.

Undecided races for pro-abortion candidates: Oregon.

Contact: Peter J. Smith
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

Obama Administration Rightly Says Genes Should not be Patentable

     

Patents protect human inventions.  Human genes are not human inventions. Hence, they should not be patentable. This simple truth seemed to escape previous administrations.  But the Obamacans get it.  From the story:

Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry. The new position was declared in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice late Friday in a case involving two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. "We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA," the brief said.

It is not clear if the position in the legal brief, which appears to have been the result of discussions among various government agencies, will be put into effect by the Patent Office. If it were, it is likely to draw protests from some biotechnology companies that say such patents are vital to the development of diagnostic tests, drugs and the emerging field of personalized medicine, in which drugs are tailored for individual patients based on their genes.

Well, that's too bad.  For some reason Big Biotech thinks the rules that apply to others shouldn't apply to it.  That sense of entitlement has got to go.

The law should mean what the law says, as a trial judge noted in the ruling being appealed:

In a surprise ruling in March, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court in Manhattan ruled the [two gene] patents invalid. He said that genes were important for the information they convey, and in that sense, an isolated gene was not really different from a gene in the body. The government said that that ruling prompted it to re-evaluate its policy.

If the best policy is to let genes be patented–let's have that discussion and change the law if it is deemed best. But until then, the law is the law and it should apply equally to all.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

UN pressures El Salvador to legalize abortion

     

Two pro-life leaders in El Salvador have condemned the recent pressure from the United Nations, urging the country to legalize abortion.

The president of the foundation Si a la Vida (Yes to Life), Regina Cardenal, told CNA that this kind of pressure is nothing new. She added that it is not uncommon for the U.N. to attempt to change a country's laws to permit abortions.

Last week the U.N. commission circulated a memo demanding El Salvador "take measures to prevent women who seek treatment in public hospitals from being reported by health care workers or administrators for the crime of abortion."

Cardenal noted that "several years ago, the New York Times published a series of lies about the laws" in El Salvador, even alleging that women were being jailed for having abortions. "They said there were women who had been sentenced to 30 years.  However, we looked into it and there was not a single conviction.

"They spread lies because abortion is a business, and therefore the pressure is not going to end," she added.

She also questioned the conduct of the director of the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women, Julia Evelyn Martinez, who pledged "to international organizations that she would review the laws that protect the unborn."

"The country's president, Mauricio Funes, disavowed her because he had no intention of ever changing the laws," Cardenal added, referring to the "Brazilian Consensus" signed by Martinez.

The "Brazilian Consensus" is an international document signed in July 2010 at the 11th Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean, which is organized by the U.N.  The document, which promotes abortion in Latin America and is constantly cited by feminist organizations, lacks any legal authority to impose the practice on countries in the region. Numerous countries, such as Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and Nicaragua have questioned the legal value of the accord.

Cardenal said it would be very difficult to change current law in El Salvador because it would imply "changing the Constitution—something very complicated at this point."  The Salvadoran Constitution recognizes personhood from the moment of conception.

Salvadoran pro-life leader Georgina Rivas also told CNA: "If we don't protect human life with appropriate care, how can we say we are protecting any manifestation of that life? The evidence of this profound error is that a woman's freedom to harm her body, her psyche, her spirit and the most precious of gifts that she has - which is the life she carries in her womb - is being promoted."

Source: CNA
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

UK Pro-Life Leader: "This is World War III"

  
     

The pro-life movement must promote a true understanding of the transmission of human life to confront the all-out attack against the family being waged by the worldly powers in Europe, North America, and throughout the world, said John Smeaton, national director of the U.K.'s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), at the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, Ontario.

"This is World War Three," he declared Friday morning in a wide-ranging and hard-hitting address.  "It's primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children."

"Sadly, the situation is made even worse by church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age," he added. (Find more coverage of Smeaton's comments on Church leaders.)

Smeaton, who also serves as vice president of the International Right to Life Federation, has worked full-time in the pro-life movement for over 30 years.  He's been national director of SPUC, founded in 1966 as the world's first pro-life organization, since 1996.  The group boasts 130 branches, 30,000 members, and 30 full-time staff.

Countries such as Britain, Spain, and Portugal are promoting abortion and contraception in the classroom without parental consent, he said, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).  The UDHR, adopted in 1948 in the wake of the great atrocities of World War II, insisted on the primacy of parents as the educators of their children, he noted, because of the Nazi's use of the education system to indoctrinate children.

He also enlightened the hundreds gathered in Ottawa on how the United Nations and governments in Europe and North America are campaigning against pro-life laws around the world, and attacking the right of doctors to refuse participation or referrals for abortion.

He pointed out, for example, that the Human Rights Council at the UN issued a report this fall calling for the policing of nations worldwide to "address the refusal of physicians to perform legal abortions".  He also noted that a debate was held last month on conscientious objection at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which fortunately resulted in a pro-life victory.

Smeaton said the pro-life movement must engage in "great campaigns" to promote conscientious objection, and must make it very clear that abortion, euthanasia, IVF and human embryo research "are not examples of medical care."  "When medical professionals kill human beings at the beginning of life or at a vulnerable moment later in life, they are not practising medical care," he said.

Rather than imposing religious beliefs, such campaigns are merely expressing humanity's consensus on the right to life, he emphasized, pointing out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes this right as primary.  He noted also that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child specifically recognizes the child's need for legal protection "before as well as after birth."

Smeaton described the awful campaign being waged in Ireland to topple that country's historic and constitutional protection for the unborn.  The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) will decide by the end of this year, in the case of A, B, & C v. Ireland, whether Ireland's constitutional protection for the unborn violates a "right" to abortion.

"If the [ECHR] rules against Ireland, then no country in the world would be safe from the international abortion lobby," he said.  "So this case is also a threat to the right of sovereign, democratic nations to govern themselves."

Smeaton called on the pro-life movement to demonstrate "an unequivocal and absolute defence of the right to life," but also "a clear understanding of the relationship of the right to life to the truth about the conjugal act and its essentially procreative nature."

He quoted Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican's highest court, who explains how the attack on life is based on an "erroneous" view of human sexuality that robs the conjugal act of its procreative nature.  "The artificial separation of the unitive and procreative elements of sexual intercourse is not only the basis of contraception, it's also the basis of early abortion and in vitro fertilisation," said Smeaton.  "It underpins today's culture of death."

This linking of the right to life with the truth about the transmission of human life "must become the foundation stone of the pro-life movement worldwide," he emphasized.

Smeaton said that Catholics' widespread use of contraception "is draining the pro-life movement of the support of the community most likely to support the battle against abortion."  "Couples who may be turning a blind eye to the practice of abortifacient birth control in the intimacy of their married lives may well find it difficult to support our unequivocal campaigns against abortion, IVF, human embryo research and euthanasia," he explained.

He praised Cardinal-designate Burke for recognizing the great importance of the pro-life movement in a powerful address last month at Human Life International's World Prayer Congress for Life.  While Archbishop Burke's recognition of the pro-life movement may seem inconsequential, he said, it is "one small significant step towards the pro-life movement's goal of getting church leaders and religious leaders of good will in every country around the world on the side of the pro-life fight."

Contact: Patrick B. Craine
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Abortion, Abortion Funding, Public Opinion, and the Mid-Term Elections

     

If you like being on the prevailing side, last night was just the tonic. If you ever questioned the impact of the abortion issue, what happened in voting for the House of Representatives Tuesday evening should dispel that forever.

There are lots of ways to measure the impact of the abortion issue. One way is to tabulate what people said about how the issue affected their vote. Another is to gauge how NRL PAC did in the tough races--especially head-to-head again EMILY's List, a pro-abortion with tons of money and a commitment to electing only the most hard-core pro-abortion female Democrats.

Let's do the numbers.

Thirty percent of voters said that abortion "affected" their vote, according to a poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc. Of that category, 22% of all voters voted for pro-life candidates, while only 8 percent of all voters voted for pro-abortion candidates. That gave pro-life candidates a net pro-life advantage of 14 percent. This is the kind of advantage that is invaluable in tough races.

National Right to Life PAC supported 285 federal candidates nationwide. Of those, 82% (235) won their races. In the most competitive races, National Right to Life PAC actively worked in 122 federal races nationwide. Of those, 74% (84) won, and nine elections are still undecided. The PAC did this while being vastly outspent.

There were many reasons National Right to Life's political action committee fared so well. The poll conducted by the polling companyTM inc found that 24% of voters recalled hearing or seeing advertising from, or receiving information from National Right to Life.

Speaking of those highly competitive races, 20 were against candidates supported by EMILY's List. The pro-life candidate supported by National Right to Life PAC won in fourteen of those twenty races (70%).

Then there is the issue of ObamaCare and abortion funding.

Twenty-seven percent of voters said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law--as opposed to only 4% who said abortion funding in the health care law affected their vote--and they voted for candidates who favored the law.

National Right to Life has also repeatedly pointed out that the Obama Health Care Law, if allowed to go into effect, will mean massive rationing of health care including the rationing of life saving treatment. The public agrees and clearly showed last night that they oppose rationing.

Forty-four percent of voters said rationing in the health care law affected their vote and they voted for candidates who opposed the health care law while only 10% said rationing in the health care bill affected their vote and they voted for candidates who favored the Obama Health Care Law.

As we look ahead, it is significant that 54% said they oppose the health care law (44% strongly) while only 39% favor it (26% strongly).

[You can find more details by reading the press statements of NRL Political Director Karen Cross and NRLC Executive Director David N. O'Steen, Ph.D.] Finally, there is the important question of public attitudes. The poll revealed that a majority continues to favor allowing abortion only in very rare circumstances.

Fifty-three percent would allow abortion at most in cases to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest as opposed to 41% who would allow abortion regardless of the reason. However, 25% of those who gave a pro-abortion response would allow abortion only in the first three months while the current policy under Roe vs. Wade allows abortion essentially throughout pregnancy for any reason.

Dr. O'Steen said it all when he told a press conference, "Post-election polling has shown that pro-life issues played a major role in what happened at the polls yesterday and provided a margin sufficient to guarantee victory in many close races."

Contact: Dave Andrusko

2010 Election Night Highlights

    

Illinois Governor's race too close to call

Illinois is still waiting to find out who will be the governor in 2011.

With the State Senator Bill Brady camp's count 8300 behind and 99% of the vote counted, he and his Republican running mate Jason Plummer stated they "remained hopeful and optimistic" but that there would be no further news until Wednesday.

Brady won the majority in all but four Illinois counties, but one of those counties was Cook.  As of midnight, precincts in Lake County and Chicago remained outstanding.

GOP Captures President Obama's Old Senate Seat in Illinois

Republicans have captured President Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat in Illinois as Mark Kirk beat out Democrat Alexi Giannoulias.
Kirk, who is pro-abortion, won with 48 percent of the vote, while Giannoulias, also pro-abortion, carried just 46 percent.

Kirk will be seated immediately in Congress and finish out the remaining months of President Obama's U.S. Senate term before taking his full six-year term in next year's Congress. He replaces acting U.S. Senator Roland Burris (D), who was appointed to fill Obama's term until the special election.

Bart Stupak's Michigan Seat Goes to Pro-Life GOP Physician

Pro-life physician Dan Benishek (R) has seized the seat of retiring U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, beating out his pro-life Democrat challenger.

With 80 percent of precincts reporting, Benishek has taken 51 percent of the vote over Gary McDowell's (D) 47 percent in Michigan's 1st District.

Stupak's deal with the president outraged most pro-life groups, which had been supporting the stand Stupak and a cadre of pro-life Democrats had taken for months that they would only vote for the law with an added statute that prevented all abortion funding.

Pro-Life Pat Toomey Wins Pennsylvania Senate Seat after a 6 Year Wait

Six years after his narrow primary loss to pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter, Republican Pat Toomey will now be the next pro-life U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania.

In a nail biter of an election, Toomey finally beat out pro-abortion Democrat challenger U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, a former U.S. Navy Vice-Admiral late Tuesday evening. Earlier in the evening, Sestak looked poised to win.
Toomey beat Sestak 51 percent to 49 percent, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

Both men were battling to succeed pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter, who jumped ship from the GOP in 2009 after Toomey announced he intended to take on Specter in the primary. However, Specter abandoned the GOP only to face a stiff primary Democrat challenge from Sestak, who pilloried Specter for his record of GOP-allied votes in the Senate. Sestak trounced Specter in the May primary, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Brownback Takes Kansas in Landslide

Pro-lifers in Kansas can breathe a sight of relief now that Sam Brownback has won the governorship that was formerly held by one of the most extreme pro-abortion politicians in the country – Kathleen Sebelius.

Brownback cruised into the governor's seat, with more than a 30% margin over his competitor Tom Holland. He takes over from Mark Parkinson, who assumed the governorship in April 2009 after Kathleen Sebelius was nominated by President Obama to become secretary of Health and Human Services.

"Tomorrow we put on our work gloves and start about the task of getting this state on track to grow," Brownback said in his victory speech.

But while Brownback has long been a hero of the pro-life movement, his victory is not without controversy, even among pro-lifers.

"100% Pro-Life" Rand Paul Wins Kentucky Senate Race

Republicans are one step closer to a possible takeover of the U.S. Senate with the election of Rand Paul in the state of Kentucky, part of what Paul tonight labeled a "Tea Party tidal wave."

The victory for Paul, who has declared himself to be unequivocally, 100% pro-life, also bodes well for pro-life activists, who are hoping that Tuesday's election will put an end to any hopes of President Obama to further a radical pro-abortion agenda.

As of 9:10 pm., with 77% of Kentucky's votes being counted, Paul is comfortably ahead of his Democratic challenger, Jack Conway, 55% to 45%.

On his election website, Paul, who is endorsed by Northern Kentucky Right to Life, has a forthright statement explaining his pro-life values. "I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being," he says. "I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life."

Contact: Peter J. Smith and John Jalsevac
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

It doesn’t pay to change your (pro-life) stance

    

Here are some of the interesting the races: the allegedly 20 pro-life Democrats who threatened to vote "no" on the health care bill unless it contained sufficient pro-life protection, but who then turned around and accepted President Obama's phony pro-life executive order in exchange for their "yes" vote. There were 20 total turncoats, including 1 who retired (Stupak) and one who lost his primary (Mollahan)

 As of right now, by my bleary-eyed calculations, many of the remaining 18 Democrats had a rough night – half of them lost their seats. And while I can't prove causation, let's just say that the next time a lawmaker gives his word to protect the preborn, I'd recommend he keep his promise; then he might keep his seat.
 Here are those who paid the price:

 •Chris Carney (PA-10)
 •Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03)
 •Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
 •Brad Ellsworth (lost his bid for IN Senate)
 •Baron Hill (IN-9)
 •Paul Kanjorski (PA-11)
 •Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
 •Tom Perriello (VA-5)
 •Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)

Contact: Ashley Horne
Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

Pro-lifer sees upside of defeat

    

Even though the personhood amendment in Colorado has been defeated, a leader of the pro-life initiative says lives have still been saved.
 
Amendment 62 was defeated by a wide margin, but Keith Mason, head of the campaign, regards positive aspects as more people were informed that life starts at its biological beginning.

"Babies have been saved; women have chosen to give their children life because of the outreach of the campaign," he points out. "We've made over a million and a half calls to people, educating them about the personhood of the preborn child."

 So as the public becomes better educated, Mason believes the proposal will eventually win in Colorado. "Our plan is to just to come right back and to do it again," he reports.

 Meanwhile, the pro-life advocate is looking forward to the election in 2011 when Mississippi, the most pro-life state in the union, will vote on a similar measure. Also, 41 other states are considering personhood amendments.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Notre Dame pays price for hosting Obama

     ;

After honoring President Barack Obama during last May's commencement ceremonies, the University of Notre Dame has seen less contributions and is feeling financial heat.
 
In May 2009, debate was heated over the fact that Notre Dame, a Catholic university, invited President Obama to speak at its graduation. It was controversial mainly because some of Obama's policies are contrary to church doctrine. Katie Walker of American Life League (ALL) tells OneNewsNow the school has paid a price.

 "Notre Dame has come out $120 million short for the fiscal year in which President Obama spoke during commencement and received an honorary law degree," she reports.

She believes that staggering number is in direct response of alumni and others around the country who feel scandalized "that Notre Dame would host this man and give one of the most pro-abortion presidents in the nation's history an honorary law degree."

 The pro-lifer points out that Obama "is a man whose philosophy of the law and philosophy of the country fundamentally is one that denies that all human beings deserve human rights," so she wonders, "Is this a man [one] that 'Our Lady's' university should be honoring and upholding and putting on a pedestal for her graduates?"

 Walker feels the drop in funding should send a loud message to Notre Dame, which means "Our Lady."


Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 3, 2010

Abortion Survivor Featured in 'Controversial' Pro-Life Victoria Video

    

The truth about the laws in Victoria and how they came about needs to be shared. These changes include no restrictions on the gestational age of a child being aborted, and there being no protection for children who are aborted but born alive. In one year alone, 54 children survived abortion attempts in the state of Victoria, but none are alive today to share their story. That's where Melissa Ohden comes in. As the survivor of a failed abortion attempt in the U.S. in 1977, Melissa now puts a face to abortion around the world, and gives a voice to the unborn children who lose their lives to abortion every day.

As the Herald Sun reports: "Melissa Ohden, from the US, says her mother tried to abort her but doctors and nurses saved her life when the procedure went wrong.

"'Sadly for me in visiting Australia, I've learned that children aren't afforded that same opportunity,' she says.

"The video also features state DLP MP Peter Kavanagh, who says he can't imagine a worse law than the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 passed in Victoria."

To view the video, The Story of a Life, in its entirety, please visit:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3WHP7Q5dp8.

Coming off of a tour of Australia and speaking at pro-life events across the U.S. during the past two months, an interview with Melissa will be airing on The 700 Club on Tuesday, November 9th.

To learn more about Melissa's story or to find out about upcoming events and interviews with her, please visit www.melissaohden.com.  

Mainstream media coverage of pro-life activities is often hard to come by, and coverage not slanted in a negative light is even more difficult to come by, particularly in Australia. However, the Herald Sun has taken notice of the video that Pro-Life Victoria has produced in their hopes to raise awareness of the changes in law in Victoria in 2008.

Contact: Melissa Ohden
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

No, Mr. President, I am not "Thinking about Sitting This One Out…"

    

I turned on my computer and went to my AOL account. There on the homepage was the face of President Obama and a link to a brief video.
 
"His message?" according to AOL. "It's simple. Exercise your right to change history by voting."

In the video President Obama makes the incontrovertible point that "If You're Thinking about Sitting This One Out, consider this": when you or I don't vote, "this leaves the decisions that affect your life up to someone else." Absolutely true.

What is also true is that if we don't vote, we forego the opportunity to help reverse the decisions that have cost the lives of over 54 million unborn children.

You and I would be part of those the President described last week as his "enemies" who need to be "punish[ed]," because we have stood athwart his ambitions. Attempting to stop ObamaCare and now to repeal and replace it is enough to place us outside the pale.

I consider being on that enemies list a badge of honor.

Have you thought about "sitting this one out?" I doubt it seriously, but if you have not already voted, please, please do so. And please be sure that all your pro-life friends, family, and colleagues have done so as well.
One other thought on voting, which I swear is a true story. As I approached the school where we vote, a young girl and her father walked by me.

She said to her father with a combination of impatience and curiosity, "I don't know why you have to vote." Her dad responded, "I don't have to vote," to which she said, "Why do you vote?"
This entire exchange took five seconds, and by the time she finished, dad and daughter had moved out of earshot.
What would you have said?

I would have responded, "if not me, who? If not now, when? If stopping Obama is not important enough, what could possibly qualify?"

Vote, as if the lives of million of unborn babies were on the line. They are!

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: NRLC
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

More support for science, pro-life statute

    

Pro-lifers are pleased that a number of states are now considering adopting Nebraska's new law on abortion, and one group is providing information on how to submit model legislation to state legislatures.
 
The statute says that once a child is capable of feeling pain, the state has an interest in protecting that life. That means the unborn child cannot be killed by abortion.

 "It's based on the new scientific understanding of the unborn child that was not known back when Roe v. Wade came down from the United States Supreme Court," explains Mary Spaulding Balch of the National Right to Life Committee.

Since that court decision almost 40 years ago legalized abortion, scientists have been able to provide sonograms as evidence to show that children feel the pain of abortion very early in pregnancy.

 "It's an issue that we want to bring to the American public and one that we want to bring to the courts as well, because we think that the decision back in 1973 was based on very faulty science -- and the science that we have today is much more improved and more readily available to the average person on the street," Balch adds.

 She notes that interested state lawmakers can contact the National Right to Life Committee, which will provide model legislation that can be submitted to state legislatures.

Contact: Charlie Butts
Source: OneNewsNow
Publish Date: November 2, 2010

Panic: Abortion is in 'Extreme Danger' Says Planned Parenthood as Election Looms

    

As the Obama administration heads toward major losses in Tuesday's mid-term elections, the nation's top abortion lobbies are rallying supporters to mitigate what is expected to be a Republican and pro-life takeover at the polls.

"I've said it before, and it bears repeating: women's health and reproductive rights are in extreme danger in this election," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote in an email to supporters Monday. "The only thing we can do now is get out there and vote — and make sure everyone who supports women's health does the same."

Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the National Organization for Women are scrambling to protect their recent political and legislative victories, particularly the abortion funding in the federal health care reform law, which were made possible by the Democratic stronghold on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have pledged to support legislation that would codify the Hyde amendment - making it impossible for any federal program to fund abortion except in cases of rape and incest. Such a law would evaporate the hard-won health reform funding aggressively pursued by the abortion lobby. Top Republican leaders have even expressed dedication to repealing the entire reform law, which was heavily supported by the abortion lobby.

On top of several other initiatives, Planned Parenthood has manned phone banks with volunteers to help get out the pro-abortion vote.

"Everything I've asked you to do, you've done. Now I need you to do just one more thing, and it's the most important of all: go out and vote tomorrow," wrote Richards in her letter to supporters.

NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan expressed dismay that a victory for "anti-choice forces" could lead to even more aggressive legal protection for the unborn than pro-life lawmakers have recently attempted.

"If anti-choice forces take back Congress, we're preparing for attacks on choice that are worse than the Stupak abortion-coverage ban to health-care reform," Keenan told supporters. "Don't let that happen."

Contact: Kathleen Gilbert
Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

1,000 Rabbis Joins Vatican Cardinal in Prohibiting Voting for Anti-Life Candidates

     

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which represents more than 1000 Rabbis, has on behalf of his organization welcomed and endorsed the recent election-themed statements by American Cardinal-designate, Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Catholic Church's highest court.

In a 25-minute video interview with Catholic Action for Faith and Family, which was broadcast last week on EWTN and other networks, Archbishop Burke stated: "You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion."
 
He added: "You may in some circumstances where you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone."

"In these crucial times in which we live, where many clerics tread with fear, Cardinal-designate Burke is to be commended and emulated as a voice of leadership," said Rabbi Levin. "This moral teaching of the Catholic Church set forth in Burke's interview with Thomas McKenna, is clearly found in the Torah and serves to give solid guidance to voters whether they are Christian, Jew or any man of faith."

"We must implement this teaching now, in the closing hours of the 2010 election cycle," stressed the spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America. "We hope in the ensuing two years to have many other denominations sign on to this prohibition. This historic alliance announced today is far more important than working together for tuition tax credits for our parochial schools. Today is nothing less than the declaration of a 'spiritual civil war.'"

Rabbi Levin concluded: "Let no person think that this directive is merely an intellectual exercise. This is a call to action to uphold the natural and moral law with pro-active voting according to our religious values. There can be no middle ground when it comes to the Sacred Laws: Marriage is between one man and one woman, and respect for all human life is obligatory. Now go out, spread the word and vote accordingly."

Source: LifeSiteNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Catholics Cannot Vote for Political Candidates Who Support a Right to Abortion, Says Vatican's Chief Justice

    

Catholics cannot vote for political candidates who support a right to abortion, said Cardinal-designate Raymond Burke, head of the highest court at the Vatican and the archbishop emeritus of St. Louis, Missouri.

 "No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what's called the right to choice of a woman to destroy the human life in her womb or the right to a procured abortion," said Burke in a recent interview with the group Catholic Action for Faith and Family.

 He further explained, "You may in some circumstances -- when you don't have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion -- choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country."
 "But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone," said the cardinal.

 The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a 'criminal' practice, gravely contrary to the moral law." (2322)

 Cardinal-designate Burke also spoke about how Catholics in public life who support abortion are creating scandal.
 "What is scandal?" he said. "Scandal is either doing something or omitting to do something that leads other people into confusion or error about the moral good. And here's the perfect example of Catholics who betray their Catholic faith in political life, as legislators or judges, or whatever it may be, leading other people to believe that abortion must not be the great evil that it is, or that abortion is in fact a good thing in some circumstances."

 "It can never be right, no matter what good I am trying to achieve by voting for a candidate who favors that good but at the same time favors the intrinsic evil, the great evil of abortion," said the cardinal. "I can't ever justify that, voting for that candidate."

 "So I just urge people to consider those smallest brothers and sisters of ours, those fellow members of God's family who our society teaches us to disregard or not to think of as fellow human beings, who really and truly are fellow human beings, and to do what's right for them," he said. "Even as we would want when we were such small little beings in our mother's womb in the embryonic stage of development or along the way before birth as we would want voters to vote to protect our lives and to safeguard our lives."

 Burke was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to be Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position comparable to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He also served in the Vatican as a member of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, which interprets the Canon Law, and a member of the Congregation for the Clergy which regulates priests and deacons of the secular clergy.

 On October 20, Pope Benedict XVI named Burke to the College of Cardinals. He will assume this office on Nov. 20.

Contact: Chris Johnson
Source: CNSNews.com
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

The Government Shouldn’t Order Insurance Companies to Provide Free Contraceptives

    

I don't think the government should force health insurance companies to cover contraception.  But under Obamacare, companies may soon be required to pay for prescribed birth control as a method of preventive health care–which Obamacare (unwisely) forces insurance to provide as a free service for all under the law's central planning protocols.  From the story:

    A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., author of the women's health amendment, says the clear intent was to include family planning. But is birth control preventive medicine? Conflicting answers frame what could be the next clash over moral values and a health law that passed only after a difficult compromise restricting the use of public money for abortions.

    For many medical and public health experts, there's no debate. "There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health," said obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. David Grimes, an international family planning expert who teaches medicine at the University of North Carolina. "Contraception rivals immunization in dollars saved for every dollar invested. Spacing out children allows for optimal pregnancies and optimal child rearing. Contraception is a prototype of preventive medicine."

    But U.S. Catholic bishops say pregnancy is a healthy condition, not an illness. In comments filed with the Department of Health and Human Services, the bishops say they oppose any requirement to cover contraceptives or sterilization as preventive care. "We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice," said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."

The media always goes to the Catholics to get such a reply. But this has nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with honesty in public policy and fiscal responsibility.

Too often we conflate what we think of as a good policy with proper definitions–and that leads to a form of public policy corruption and indiscipline because necessary parameters liquefy.  Thus, contrary to the pro coverage spokesperson quoted above, contraception is nothing like immunizations–which prevent illnesses. Except in rare circumstances in which a woman's health requires her not to become pregnant–in which case contraception should be covered like any other medical need–birth control prevents a normal, health condition arising out of sexual activity.  In this way it is unlike pap smears, which are preventive medicine because they can detect unhealthy changes at the cellular level.  Mammograms are similarly preventive medicine.  So are colonoscopies and urine testing for diabetes.

This isn't to say that birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance.  But I don't think the think the federal government should require that it be covered.  Indeed, the market can easily–and without the rule of  bureaucrats–determine whether, under what circumstances, and by what terms, contraception will be covered by a particular policy.

This issue casts a Klieg light on another big defect in Obamacare; the centralization of control over health insurance in federal bureaucracies.  Placing such power in the hands of central planners politicizes the system.  This means that that the bureaucrats will be under pressure from politicians seeking votes to provide goodies for the voters back home.

Alas, it's always easy to spend other people's money.  But as a great man once said, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: Secondhand Smoke
Publish Date: November 1, 2010

Pro-Life Group Proves that Obamacare Subsidizes Abortion

    

A recent battle over free speech and abortion – involving a pro-life group and a pro-life Ohio Democrat – has prompted the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) to release a generic affidavit that outlines how the new health care law subsidizes abortion.

The move came after the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) came under fire recently for its media campaign against Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio.

Facing extremely unfavorable polling numbers and lack of support from the Democrat Party, Driehaus made a desperate move.

After learning about a planned billboard campaign, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission, alleging SBA List violated two election laws when it tried to place on billboards the simple message, "Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."

The commission – which was mostly appointed by the Democrat governor – as well as federal judge who handled the emergency restraining order – who also was the former president of the Planned Parenthood of Cincinnati – ruled against SBA List.
The legal tussle continues.

NRLC filed an affidavit on behalf of SBA List, which provided at least 16 substantive examples in the new health care law where taxpayers are on the hook to fund abortions.

The pro-life group made available a generic version of the affidavit for the public. The new affidavit discusses H. Con. Res. 254 in paragraphs 27, 28, and 29.

Click here to watch SBA List's education video, explaining how the health care law funds abortion.

Source: CitizenLink
Publish Date: October 29, 2010